Frank commentary from an unretired call girl

Enabling Oppression

This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves… – Abraham Lincoln

Few words (other than merely functional ones such as articles, prepositions, conjunctions and the like) are semantically neutral; most have a connotation which functions in addition to or completely supersedes their denotation. Expressed in plainer language, most words have a “feel” or emotional weight in addition to their plain dictionary meaning, and ofttimes this weight is more important than the actual definition. Because of this, one of the most effective tools of propaganda is one we might call “reassociation”; it is accomplished by linking or even equating a concept whose descriptors have a low semantic weight with one of very great semantic weight. We’ve talked about one common example of this before; because the terms “habituation” and “obsession” lack the powerful onus of “addiction”, those who wish to cast habits (whether semi-physical or wholly psychological) in a negative light label them “addictions”. Similarly, “trafficking” fetishists equate many things they oppose with slavery; this is especially odious when the propagandists are official ones, since both real slavery and the lesser practices so glibly equated with it can only exist on a large scale with the cooperation of government.

Chattel slavery is an institution in which one human being can legally own another; the slave is classified in the eyes of the state and the society as property, and his only rights are those the state deigns to grant him. Contrary to popular depictions, slaves are not usually chained; they would be useless for most labor if they were. Newly-captured slaves who have not yet been transported to the country in which they will be enslaved, or slaves who are being disciplined or held for some purpose from which they might flee (such as sacrifice) are generally the only ones restrained with actual, physical chains. The bonds of a chattel-slave are invisible, yet far more binding; they are the chains of law and custom, which hold the slave in a condition of servitude even should he physically escape his master. Would-be social engineers who go about defining every form of labor they dislike as “slavery” insult the experiences of every chattel slave in history and completely miss the worst part of slavery: its inescapability. In a society which allows chattel slavery (virtually the entire world prior to the 18th century, and much of it until the second half of the 19th), the slave is viewed by both law and custom as property; even should he escape every law-abiding, “right-thinking” citizen will be against him, and even if he avoids recapture he faces life as a perpetual outlaw until and unless he can somehow reach a land which will not enforce the laws of the one in which he was enslaved.

One of the conditions frequently mislabeled as “slavery” is captivity, the state in which some individual or group holds a person by confinement, force or threat; though it may be extremely brutal and/or frightening, captivity differs from slavery chiefly in that it’s illegal, and should the captive escape he will not usually be returned to his captors…though he may, of course, be persecuted, imprisoned or deported should he be a member of some group officially classed as undesirable by the government. In other words, captivity can only approximate slavery when a government cooperates with the captors by defining a group of “safe” victims (such as prostitutes or “illegal aliens”) which it will hound should they escape. A government which defines such a group enables criminals to hold members of that group captive, both by providing them with a credible threat to discourage flight and by ensuring that their captives will not be considered credible witnesses should they flee despite threats.

When the captivity is economic rather than physical, it is referred to as “debt bondage”; like physical captivity, it can only really be enforced by laws which allow the debt holder to steal the property of the victim so bound or even to demand that the debtor be imprisoned. Wage slavery is a related condition which is enabled by protectionist laws that make it difficult or impossible to start new small businesses (thereby ensuring that most people have to work for the established big ones), and by compulsory union laws which require workers to forfeit a percentage of their wages to a politically-connected NGO which assumes the right to speak for them. And then there’s serfdom, in which members of a government-defined group “owe” that government a certain percentage of their labor (in other words, an income tax) and can only live or travel in places the government allows them to live or travel.

In every kind of bondage, it is government which creates the legal climate which allows oppression to flourish; remove the laws which chain people to their captors and there is nothing other than plain brute force – which is extremely limited in its usefulness – to keep the serfs, slaves, captives, debtors or bondsmen from simply walking away. And that’s why things like this make me so furious:

The house where President Abraham Lincoln drafted the Emancipation Proclamation some 150 years ago is confronting the reality that more people are held in modern-day slavery than at the height of the trans-Atlantic slave trade…The…2011 Trafficking in Persons report…[claims that] as many as 27 million men, women and children are living in such bondage. In an exhibit titled ‘Can You Walk Away?” …President Lincoln’s Cottage…tells the stories of women working as domestic servants without pay, of women forced to work as prostitutes and of men held in servitude through debt contracts and other coercion. It will remain on view in a small gallery at the site through August 2013. Curators partnered with the nonprofit Polaris Project…to create the exhibit…

“Plenty of Americans see slavery as an issue that was resolved during the Civil War or by the 13th Amendment…not as a growing humanitarian crisis in our own country”…said [museum director Erin Carlson Mast]. “But fundamentally, the same issue is at stake: People’s right to freedom”…Since 2007, the Washington-based Polaris Project has received about 45,000 calls to its tip line, including about 11,000 from victims or others calling to report suspected forced servitude or sex trafficking, said executive director Bradley Myles. More than 2,000 cases have been referred to law enforcement. “I think that’s just the tip of the iceberg,” Myles said, noting that not all slaves are held by physical force. “What has grown more is other, broader forms of coercion that are more psychological, are more subtle, are more economic”…

Aside from the incredible insult to the long-dead victims of the Atlantic slave trade and the pimping of Lincoln’s reputation to promote an oppressive agenda, there’s a deeper hypocrisy on display here. Myles is wrong; few if any modern “slaves” are held by physical force. They are held by the laws and policies of the United States and other governments, executed by the very “law enforcement” organizations Polaris so happily supports.

One Year Ago Yesterday

“How Old is Oldest?” discusses the prehistoric origin of prostitution and describes my first correspondence with evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa.

Related

44 Responses

Actually Maggie, though this kind of thing infuriates me almost as much as you … I don’t really feel a need to protect the legacy of Lincoln.

I’ve thought about this a lot – and I think, if there was a single turning point where we willingly left the principles of the Constitution – it was during “Honest” Abe’s term as President. NO! I am NOT a Neo-Confederate shaking my fist at the sky here … it’s absolutely unfortunate that the damage this man caused is “masked” by the GOOD he did toward freeing the slaves but …

It was his “extra-constitutional” measures that were a problem. He called up the militia of all the states to field an army of 75,000 men when only Congress has that power. He unilaterally ordered the suspension of Habeas Corpus, which led to the arrest of thousands of civilians by the military on goofy, and often trumped up charges. There was no democratic government in Maryland during the war – because Lincoln pretty much disbanded it when he perceived it to be full of southern sympathizers. He even disobeyed the Supreme Court when they ordered him to release John Merryman – after Merryman was arrested by military troops.

I could go on with this.

I have to tell you – that I feel a bit guilty because, I originally SUPPORTED the Patriot Act and continued to support it for a very long time. Made sense to me … Lincoln resorted to extra-constitutional measures and we survived as a nation, right?

But what does it mean to the nation simply to just … survive? One excess by government simply justifies the next one that comes along. Before you know it … George Bush is using Lincoln as justification to craft a “Patriot Act” … which desensitizes people enough to be accepting of Obama’s drone war on US citizens … which simply leads to the next outrage and the next, each one coming closer and closer to me and my family.

And, to kind of bring this all back home with respects to your article – these trafficking idiots would simply be voices in the wilderness were it not for a government that is completely willing to use their complaints as justification to increase its power over the individual. That’s REALLY what this is all about. Today, it’s trafficking. Tomorrow – it’ll be forcing me to join a government union because I’m too stupid to negotiate my own contracts. It’s out of control.

We crossed the Rubicon with Lincoln, I’m afraid. We are often told that Lincoln was tortured by the carnage of the Civil War, but I’ve long held that what tortured him most was not the body count but the knowledge of what he had done to the Constitution, and the process he had set in motion. I fully believe that he made the decision he felt was right, but KNEW that it would cause horrible problems down the road and hoped against hope that leaders after him would be wise and strong enough to re-chain the demon he had loosed. Alas, it was a vain hope.

Yeah, I agree and I think it’s really been your writings that have produced the most profound changes in the way I think. I bought a new truck in 2007 right before the elections and I put a “Thank You President Bush” sticker on the back window. That kind of shows you where I was at that point in my life politically. I don’t know how to get that fucker off (it won’t peel off!) … I think I will just cancel out it’s “voodoo” with an Obama 2012 sticker (since we’re only electing a pilot to crash the plane this time).

But no, the “Bush” sticker wasn’t really because I agreed with him politically … I mean, he did talk about smaller government but he never delivered it. Really I was just happy with him for allowing us to kick the asses of the terrorists finally. You have no idea how many times I’d watch something bad happening in the world and think … “God! Just put us in there! We can fix this and those guys won’t know what hit them!” Bush was the first one to come along, in a very long time that was willing to just unleash us to do what we do. And, he would even stand behind us when we screwed up. Maybe it’s the testosterone or something but one minute, you’re charging in one direction (happy as hell) and everything makes sense. The next minute, you’re scratching your head on this unfamiliar road and you have no idea how you got there and wonder where the fuck you took a wrong turn – because this isn’t where you wanted to be.

The thing that pisses me off – is that Anwar al-Awlaki (who was a US citizen) was one of the biggest scum-bags on the planet. I’d have happily shot him myself but now I’m in the position of having to oppose his killing by the US Government because … heh, if they can just kill Awlaki – then they can just declare anyone in my family a terrorist and kill them also. It’s not like the media is going to oppose the White House and say … “Uhm no actually, Krulac’s family weren’t terrorists.” That’ll never happen! So any of us can get “zapped” out here and no one’s going to give a damn about that fact. So yeah – we’ve crossed the Rubicon alright. I mean – hell doesn’t get much hotter from this point on – uglier maybe, but not hotter.

It looks like they earned $20 bucks for walking around and sitting around … when they would have otherwise earned nothing. However the company is getting bad PR flak over this because some consider it to be exploitive.

LOL – maybe the right thing to do is just raise taxes on everyone and give ’em $20 bucks out of the government safe?

The money can come from all the poverty relief programs we’re already spending money on, which might be enough. If it isn’t, auction off the broadcast spectrum instead of giving it away, and charge the oil companies for taking it out of our ground.

There: poverty eliminated, nobody falls through the cracks, and the government isn’t telling you what to do (get a job, take a class, fill out a form, quit hooking, etc.).

Right. Think about something like applying for food stamps: first off, you have to apply. Then you have to prove that you’re poor enough to get the stamps (more like a debit card than actual stamps these days). And just how much do you qualify for? And do you have a high rent, so that you might qualify for more, or do you get housing assistance, in which case you will qualify for less? Then you have to go in from time to time to prove that you’re still poor enough, lost housing assistance, or whatever.

And pretty much all the programs are like that. A whole lot of the money spent on poverty relief doesn’t go to poor people.

I have my problems with Lincoln, the accidental emancipator, but I have even more problems with the progeny of the party he founded.

From William F. Buckley…

“We have got to accept Big Government for the duration-for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged, given our present government skills, except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores. … And if they deem Soviet power a menace to our freedom (as I happen to), they will have to support large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards, and the attendant centralization of power in Washington-even with Truman at the reins of it all.”

One wonders if Bill would be as happy with Obama at the reins of it all…

Those are valid powers of government; unfortunately, those powers are now as eclipsed by its evils as the benefits of a poisonous medicine are eclipsed by the fact that it kills the patient. Government can’t even get the concept of equality right; any sane and moral person can recognize that while equality of opportunity is freedom, equality of results can only be achieved by tyranny. So of course it’s equality of results that governments try to impose.

In the Far East, debt slavery was very common. People sold themselves into slavery in order to raise (relatively) large sums of money to help their families pay off debts, taxes, or even pay for funerals.

While governments and activists all have agendas that largely have nothing to do with our welfare, and everything to do with wealth and/or power, it amazes me how blind the “man in the street” is to ridiculous claims and actions of governments.

If freelance gardeners were being assaulted, extorted, robbed, and forced to work in prescribed territories by gangsters, would anyone agree with the contention that the job of gardening was simply too dangerous, and therefore professional gardening had to be made illegal, and that anyone helping a gardener would also be declared a victimiser and a criminal? In addition, would the “public” agree that anyone who still insisted on becoming a gardener had to be either demented or was somehow being forced into the profession, and needed to be forcibly rescued while simultaneously given a criminal record?

Anyone with a trace of common sense would say that the above is ridiculous, that the gardeners’ right to work how and where they wanted had to be defended, and that it was the gangsters who had to be prosecuted.

Yet when the word “gardener” is replaced by “prostitute” or even “sex worker/stripper/etc.”, somehow the same simple logic no longer applies. Why can so few people see how absolutely stupid this is?

Here’s my problem with all the anti-government people: Without government, what? Who takes the place in the power vacuum? Usually, history has shown us it’s warlords of some type. Look at Somalia, and Afghanistan. They have not benefited from no government.

The answer to bad government is not no government, but good government. Good government is government in the hands of the people governed, it’s cooperative government.

Today, the US government has been reduced to not much more than the enforcement arm of international capital, and all government decisions are made in that light. They aren’t made to benefit you.

No, it ISN’T about international capital. It’s about power-mad freaks. The problem isn’t money, it’s POWER. If rich people weren’t allowed to have undue influence over government they could collect as much money as they liked and no moral person would care.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Government is like fire or radioactive material. It’s both unquestionably useful, and unquestionably dangerous. We have to use it but never forget how dangerous it is. It must be surrounded by protective walls, only touched with protective gear, and fed with a strictly limited fuel supply with strong measures standing by to quench it should it get out of control…and those measures need to be readily accessible to everyone, not just the chosen few. What we’ve done and continue to do is to stand by while a wildfire spreads, killing people and consuming resources and homes, while the True Believers keep throwing more fuel into it on purpose and chanting “Fire is good, the fire-god will protect us!” and trying to stop those who either run from it or attempt to collect together a fire brigade to put it out.

Maggie, this is the most nuanced, thoughtful statement I’ve read on the sobject of government from any basically anti-government person. Mostly, the rant is that “FIRE BAD!!” and that if you MUST have any fire, it should be a single birthday candle (and not the self-relighting kind) surrounded by forty fire extinguishers and twenty Olympic swimming poos full of cold water with turbo-pumps standing by… and that’s only until we get people to realize that the candle should be blown out. Comixchick’s question, “Without government, what?” is legitimate, even though you do happen to know better.

A lot of these I-am-an-island types won’t admit that governments did a good thing when they built roads. At least you support roads.

Wiser folks than myself saw this long ago: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” – James Madison

Somewhere along the line, the concept that a democratic government is the caretaker and guardian of its people, and not simply another name for ruler, has been lost. A government is like the CEO and Board of Directors of a company. They run the company for the benefit of the shareholders and may be replaced by those same shareholders if they fail to perform. CEO does to equate to Owner, and President does not equate to King.

The size of the government is simply another red herring thrown out to confuse the people. If the staff of a private nursing home neglect and mistreat their residents, the problem is not that there are too many or too few staff members, but simply that they are not doing their job.

Unfortunately, y’all are mistaken. Let me explain; the problem is that people don’t like to do nothing. Where there is a government official he WILL be employed. And since there are very few legitimate functions of government, any operatives employed above the minimum number needed to perform those functions will be employed at unnecessary functions, and those unnecessary functions are inevitably to the people’s detriment.

Take cops for example; in the mid-19th century only the largest cities employed cops, and every other sheriff merely raised a posse (from the Latin posse comitatus, “force of the county”) of citizens when he had need of police power. But as legislatures expanded (i.e. made bigger) the extent and scope of the laws beyond their valid minimum, to intrude into aspects of people’s lives they previously hadn’t (such as what they drank and why they had sex), it was necessary to hire more permanent cops to enforce these new laws; police departments got bigger and therefore there were more cops who could be employed sticking their noses in others’ business. Once the legislatures discovered they could use those thug armies to collect extra revenues (in the form of fines) the size of those armies continually increased; there was a big spike during Prohibition (of course) and again as crime increased in the ’80s (of course). Then because of the “war on drugs” and “war on terrorism” those departments had to be given more guns and more power to trample rights (i.e. their power to do so got BIGGER). Meanwhile, the number of laws have expanded and the government has grown until literally everything a person might do in public (and many private) is covered by some law.

There is no such thing as “good” government because government is not good; it is a necessary evil, like violence used to acquire meat or repel the aggression of another. And since it IS evil, the only way it can be controlled is to be kept to the minimum size possible. When your immune system has nothing better to do, it creates allergies and autoimmune disorders. When cops have nothing better to do, they sit around giving tickets or otherwise harassing people. And when legislatures have nothing better to do, they make laws to increase their own power and control over every conceivable aspect of life. Bigger is therefore ALWAYS worse.

Your example isn’t one of government doing bad things because it’s too big; you example is one of government getting big because it’s doing bad things.

I can imagine two small island nations, each with a population in the low tens of thousands and ten thousand people in the workforce at any given time. Suppose that on both islands the government employs one thousand people, 10% of the workforce.

Island A uses its one thousand government employees to arrest prostitutes, control the radio station, and make sure nobody is publishing any subversive books, magazines, websites, or newspapers. Some small number would also do things like maintain roads and such, but mostly they’re cops.

Island B uses its one thousand government employees to maintain roads, expand the canals so that they can grow more food at home instead of importing so much, and reducing class size by training more teachers. A few serve as cops because any society will have some law-breakers, even if there are few law and those are reasonable.

A government that isn’t doing bad things will either use its employees for something else or they simply won’t be hired. We need to be vigilant about what government does, and then government will likely grow smaller as a side-effect.

Find me ONE example of a large government acting as you say instead of just grabbing more power and I’ll accept the argument. The fact is, governments don’t do more good as they get larger; they just do more evil. A small, evil government has less power to harm than a large, evil government, but all large governments inevitably become more evil as they expand in size. There is a point at which a government prevents more evil than it causes (like chemotherapy, which makes the recipient horribly sick but doesn’t kill), but that point is very small and narrow.

I wrote a reply to this, and then WordPress told me I have to log in, and it also didn’t save what I’d written. I could have sworn that I WAS logged in, I always have been. I’m going to calm down and then write it again, probably late tonight or tomorrow.

Here’s some programs that DID increase the size of US government, BUT truly help people live independently AND keep working: FMLA which is the Family Medical Leave Act. This has literally saved my job for years. Without it I and others like me would be fired for attendance because we have health problems that have no cures. I find it a disgusting outrage that this program was even NEEDED, but it was and thank God for it. It also protects the jobs of women who take maternity leave and people who need to nurse a family member who has health problems. I’m not the only 1 who’s on this program at my job and I’m very thankful for it. It KEEPS people with health problems WORKING which means giving back to society and paying taxes, etc. To be on it all I have to do is turn in paperwork from my doctor once a year about what my health problems are, how long I’ve had them, etc. There’s NO ordering me around about my life in any way and no questions about do I smoke, drink, etc. Programs that help people live independently: Social Security disability, Veterans Administration disability and Section 8 housing. Sailor Barsoom has lived independently for years thanks to VA disability and Section 8 housing. He hasn’t been asked to get a disability physical exam in years and there’s no one in US government questioning him either about his lifestyle just like me with FMLA. Also, to acknowledge how wonderful these programs are at truly helping people keep working and live independently doesn’t automatically mean that those who are IN them think all the US government does is OK. That’s a popular lie these days: you say the government actually does help people then you’re IN WITH THEM (eyeroll) and you condone ALL they do. You put up with it on purpose. NO! You can be in these programs and still do all you can to expose, stop, etc., the evils that the US government does do. These programs prove that not all government growth is evil and some of it truly does help people.

Maggie, you and I have a philosophical difference here. We won’t reach an agreement on it unless one or the other of us has a truly Damascene conversion, which isn’t likely. The reason it’s considered a miracle when Saul became Paul is because it doesn’t happen often.

I could bellow at you for not changing, but since I’m not willing to change, my bellowing would ring hollow. Besides, it wouldn’t be nice. Thanks for not bellowing at me.

Comixchik,
“The answer to bad government is not no government, but good government.”

Govern-ment == control-mind.

I often wonder how people imagine there is such a thing as GOOD mind control. We are inventing the future of government now. It is no government. It is a system of law in which there can be no coercion. Those who ask for govern-ment deserve what it is they are getting.

1) Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
2) Bullets fired randomly into the air sometimes actually hit living targets on the ground.-this is sad, it really is. Can’t there be any happiness for the people like me who are literally working because of a truly good government program? Sailor Barsoom is able to live on his own and burden no one else because of the government programs that truly help him. The literal hate for the government can get to the point where programs that are good and truly help are wilfully ignored. It’s the same as talking about ONLY the whores like Aileen Wuornos with never any mention of the 1’s who aren’t serial killers like Wuornos was. Totally unfair. This is a very popular thing these days: if the government does ANY good then it was truly an accident. The programs I listed disprove this. So do other programs: Apollo (going to the moon), Medicaid and Medicare. I could name others besides these. All the reasons for starting FMLA were good. It’s actually CHEAPER for the taxpayers for me to be on FMLA than be on disability. Without it I’d have to be on disability to have any independence. I’m a taxpayer thanks to the program. I can only imagine how the good people who work in government feel (yes, there are good 1’s and always have been) when all they hear is how bad it all is, anything good is an accident, etc., etc. They feel bad like any group feels when all that’s ever talked about is the bad. This includes whores also. Shouldn’t ALL groups get the basic decent treatment of pointing out the good people in them at all times and not just dwelling on the negative? Thanks for listening.

The following isn’t an argument I’d usually make because it misses the main point against government, but I’m curious:

In the country where you live, of all the things the government does, do you think all the things you call good outweigh or justify all the things you would call bad? Imagine, on being told by somebody about something bad done by government to them, saying to them:

“What government just did to you, you need to balance it out with these good things government does.”

I can’t answer for Laura (though I can guess what her answer might be). I know that I, at least, don’t excuse the bad things which my government does, or try to say that the good things it does means that the bad things “don’t matter.”

The thing is, when all good things are ignored or are stated to “not matter,” the whole idea of reform kind of craps out. There’s little point in trying to get the government to do fewer bad things, or more good things, or fewer things altogether, if it is some monster incapable of any good except (and then only if somebody throws it in your face, hard) by rare, very rare, accident.

I like Apollo, I don’t like MK-ULTRA. I don’t claim that because of Apollo, MK-ULTRA doesn’t matter. I don’t claim that because of MK-ULTRA, Apollo doesn’t matter.

”What has grown more is other, broader forms of coercion that are more psychological, are more subtle, are more economic”…

Well that sounds like the average office worker. So when are they going to raid the Sears Tower and free all the slaves? My former roommate works in the Tower and certainly feels held captive psychologically and economically to a job that she hates and dehumanizes her. Come on, Polaris! Let’s to rescue my friend!

I can actually provide you a very clear –and current– example of debt slavery enforced by law happening as we speak.

Every homeowner or person who every aspires to own a home needs to read this: It’s called a “Collateral Mortgage”. Commit that term to memory. You’ll most likely see it next time you renew your mortgage or try to get a new one.

“Mortgage” by the way, is a latin word meaning “until death”, as in, it will take most of your lifetime to pay off your house. They’re trying to make that meaning more literal now.

Generally if banks are doing it in Canada, it’s been going on in the USA for at least 6 months already, so this should be relevant in just about every developed nation.

Two of Canada’s five main banks, and ING (who used to be a good company, helping people save money and get out of debt, but they’ve gone over to the Dark Side, as it were; realizing they can make a lot more money manipulating people into remaining in debt their entire lives) have decided that ALL of their new mortgages, and every mortgage they renew, will be Collateral Mortgages instead of Conventional Mortgages.
Generally this is done by putting a different contract on the desk when homeowners come in to renew their mortgage (or apply for a new one) and seeing if they will sign it without asking any questions. Though Collateral mortgages are fairly new, they’ve had a disturbing degree of success with this plausible deniability, bait & switch tactic.

But let’s say our homeowner is a bit sharper eyed, puts their pen down and askes “What’s a ‘collateral mortgage’ and how is it different from the conventional one I had up until now?”

The bank’s mortgage agent will smile broadly and cheerfully explain how a Collateral Mortgage skillfully combines all the paperwork and information gathering of a new mortgage with a future loan application, and since the house is already appraised and available as collateral, the homeowner is automatically approved for a loan of up to 125% the value of the mortgage.

Lets use some nice round sample numbers:

Homeowner has a $120,000 mortgage (new or at renewal time), at an attractively competative 5% intrest rate. That would make their monthly payments about $500.

That means they’re simultaneously approved for a loan of up to $150,000 the minute they sign the Collateral Mortgage papers.

The bank representitive will go on about how much time and paperwork this saves, and how easily and painlessly this makes getting a loan later on in life for the client “just in case you need it”. There’s no long approval process; you basically just ask for the money and they give it to you.

And so the happy client signs, feels they’ve made a clever financial decision, and goes home contented and pleased with themselves.

Unfortunately, what this dubious 2-in-1 offer looks like on the homeowner’s credit report is:
$280,000 approved loan @ 5%. Paying $500/month of what should be $1166. SHORTFALL of $666.66 each month. (($120k +$150k) x 0.05 / 12months)
or…
$150,000 approved loan. Payments made first year: $0. Payments made second year $0. Payments made third year: $0.

Regardless of how that particular credit union calculates it, the bank hasn’t given you any money yet on this loan, but it’s still demolishing your credit rating every year. Credit rating (something every adult should educate themselves on) is basically a number representing how reliable a person you are to loan money to, and affects the interest rates on your credit cards, loans, lines of credit, student loans, mortgages, etc, etc… and can also prevent you from getting a job, as many employers are now doing credit checks on their new hires. Basically, if your credit rating is lower, you’re viewed as a less reliable individual, and must pay more for the same services to balance the risk for the few companies who might still be willing to deal with you at all.

Years pass; it’s renewal time again. Poor Mr. client is really hoping he can get a good rate on his mortgage this year, because his credit card balances have been getting harder and harder to keep on top of the last few years, though he isn’t quite sure why.

Bank: “I’m sorry, Mr. We-know-your-name-only-because-it’s-in-our-database, but due to your credit rating,” which they themselves destroyed, ” you’re now a high-risk lendee. You can still renew your mortgage with us, but your new interest rate is now 10%. Your monthly payments are now $1000.” (sympathetic expression).

“WHAT? I’ve been paying off this house for 5 years and now you’re charging me DOUBLE? That’s ridiculous! I’m taking my business elsewhere!”

“OH! I really wouldn’t recommend that!”

“Why not?”

“There’s steep penalties involved in breaking your contract with us.”

Surprisingly knowledgeable customer: “Yeah, I know about that; it’s a scare tactic to keep clients’ business. You tell me I have to pay $1500 or so in penalty fees to get out of my mortgage, which I don’t have, so I’ll feel I’m forced to stay with you no matter what terms you change or what rates you decided to charge me! Most lenders will gladly eat an extra $1500 if they gain a $120,000 our of it.”

Bank rep: “Ah, well that’s usually true, however with our new Collateral mortgages, the penalties are MUCH higher. I don’t think you’ll find any lending institutions willing to ‘eat’ $50,000 for a $120,000 mortgage. It’s just not worth it at those amounts!”

“WHY DIDN’T YOU MENTION THIS BEFORE I SIGNED THAT P.O.S.?!?”

“Why would we? That somewhat defeats the purpose.”

“Of owning my own home?”

“No no no, not YOUR purpose; OUR purpose; to keep you in debt to us for the maximum number of years possible.”

“Gah! This will ruin me! I don’t want to lose my house! Can I sell it to my wife for a buck?”

“No. You can only sell it to a non-family member, and at full market value. So yes, you either accept our terms or lose your home… and you’d still have to make your inflated payments until the house sells too.”

Defeated homeowner. “Fine! (sob) you win! But I can barely make ends meet as it is! I don’t HAVE $1000 a month to pay this mortgage with!”

Evilly grinning bank rep: “Then this would be a good time to remind you how you’re pre-approved for a $150,000 loan from our bank… which is about the only lending institution who will still do business with you since we destroyed your credit rating.”

Defeated homeowner slumps. “…I’m going to be paying you people money until the day I die, aren’t I?”

Unrealistically honest bank rep: “…And then we call your kids and strongly imply they have a legal obligation to pay their deceased parents’ debts (which they are not, of course, but we specifically train people how to make it sound like they are without actually saying so… or if that doesn’t work, actually saying so).”

BLAM!
(The homeowner has put a gun in his mouth, and pulled the trigger.)

The bank rep blinks, shrugs, and dials the phone. “Mrs. Homeowner? I was wondering if you could stop by the bank sometime today. Your husband forgot to sign some papers before he… left. … Well, yes, they are rather important if you want to keep your house. … 3:00? That’s fine, see you then!”

Just read your great post from a year ago and your conversation with Kanazawa. I swear, those who have no experience of prostitution at all–and it is very easy in the US to never see a prostitute ever, let alone get to know one–they seem to have the strangest ideas of what the most common form of interaction, ie. with escorts, looks like!

It makes me feel like videotaping my entire sessions with escorts, if only to bore them to death. No, not that my sex is boring. 😉 But they would see that it looks just like ANY OTHER date night sex. If I didn’t tell them my video was with a prostitute, they would have never known!

In fact, since I live in a small city/ big town, after several visits, my favorites come over my place now like neighbors, literally, just looking for a fun night. Though I’m a total dork, I’m now suddenly an orgasm-inducing stud, getting off the most disparate collection of women possible, from young white cuties to black women in their late 30s. When I first started out seeing prostitutes in strip clubs and brothels in Germany and Mexico, I thought their wish for orgasm was out of the question. But now, here in Indiana, they are literally telling me what to do to get them off! So much for the asinine “hooker module in the brain” that Kanazawa proposes, or maybe I am an evolutionary misfit…

Btw, I’m on Spring Break now and I’ve had a few beers, so I hope I don’t regret anything I said just now in the morning. 😉

Hey Laura, no, I didn’t mean to suggest that. But, yeah, actually sometimes I think, in a joking way, that they should be paying me for what I do! I mean, some come over every time expecting me to get them off every single time, even though it’s late at night and I’m tired!

And, again, this is not typical of my 10-year experience with prostitution. It’s only when I moved into this sorta small Indiana town that I experienced how very cozy provider-client relationships can be. And I am not rich and I don’t look like Brad Pitt and this was not part of their “porn star performance,” since none of them wanted me to do it until like our 3 session together. In spite of all this, yeah, I agree, I think it’s wonderful!

Dear JR, thanks for answering. I’m with you on we should help others feel good. I don’t know about you, but I’m so tired of whole groups of people never having anything good said about them I could scream my head off. It’s always the NEGATIVE. An example: statements like “politicians are scum”. While too many ARE scum, some aren’t and could they EVER be given credit? What about building individuals UP and whole groups of people UP? Helping others feel better is 1 reason that I’ve had what I call “sex only friendships”. I had some men friends in the past that I purposely didn’t charge a cent to have sex plus kept the cost of meeting me, having 1 formal date, etc., as low as possible. I got huge rewards out of this. Yes, there was some bad stuff, especially the amount of lies I heard. But, I never gave up on finding a few men who wanted an ONGOING friendship. I was proud to have helped out some sexually frustrated men and I always have the option to do this within my relationship (I’m engaged but not legally married). I have a real soft spot for men who are poor (it’s not true that all men can afford streetwalkers), don’t want to see prostitutes and the 1’s who are disabled, have health problems, etc., who go through the regular HELL of having SNOB women reject them for even non-sexual friendship. Thanks again for sharing about your experiences.

To be honest, not 1 of my past friends and I ever had a conversation about prostitution. I find that kind of strange because you’d have thought the subject would have come up at SOME time because of the type of friendship they had with me. I came to the conclusion I did above based on years of experience with using personal ads. There’s a big group of men out there using the personal ads to make sex friends. Also some men say in their ads they don’t want to meet whores. I also base it on reading I’ve done since I started posting on here. I’ve been reading up more on these things since then. Thanks for your kind words about the word “free”. I LOVE the term “free love” because to me it’s the IDEAL that I practice. I know the sex I had was literally free (that was on purpose for at least a few reasons) for the men, but there were other costs involved with sex friends, like transportation, condoms, meals/drinks on dates, etc. I purposely bought all the condoms, lubricant, etc., because I wanted to break that ###*** that the world system pushes that men should pay for condoms, etc., at all time. I did the same with meals/drinks on dates also. ###*** the world system! The men who don’t want to see whores deserve sex also and shouldn’t be put in some safe, litte category box with the men who do want to see them. Thanks again for your kind words.

Dear gumdeo, I forgot to say above that the reading I’ve done since I started posting here has also been a part of me deciding to speak up more for the women like me. It’s NEEDED. I want to break the ###*** about us out there. Some of my “favorites”: you’re literally too stupid to charge $ for sex. You’re not “brave enough” to be a full-on whore. You wilfully ignore your “true worth” in the sexual area. You’re WILFULLY (lol) stupid when you choose to not specifically charge for sex. You’ll date anyone at any time (the women like me who have restrictions on who they’ll see are never mentioned…lol). You think you’re “too good” to have ANY association with full-on whores. I could go on, unfortunately. The positives about non-whore women who help men sexually also need to be put out more I’ve learned. It’s funny…I didn’t read up much on women like me in the past. I know 1 reason for that is I had a lot of recovery work to do from past abuse and trauma. It took a lot of energy just to hold down a full-time job and do the recovery work. Please know when I talk about the men who don’t want to see whores that doesn’t mean I think the 1’s who do shouldn’t. They shouldn’t be put in any safe, little category boxes either. It’s up to EACH man if he sees whores or not. Thanks for listening.

Whorish Media

Maggie on Twitter

Boring but necessary legal stuff

All original content on this website (i.e. all of my columns, pages and anything else which I write myself) is protected under international copyright law as of the time it is posted; though you may link to it as you please or quote passages (as long as you attribute the quote to me), please do not reproduce whole columns without my express written permission. In other words, you have to say "pretty please with sugar on top" first, and then wait for me to say "okey-dokey".